Back to the Report

More publications like . . .

The 2017-18 Budget: Cap-and-Trade


Report

Evaluating the Policy Trade-Offs in ARB's Cap-and-Trade Program

February 9, 2012 - This report analyzes the design of the cap-and-trade program as adopted by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). This new, complex program is part of the state's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions statewide to 1990 levels by 2020—a goal set by the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (commonly referred to as AB 32). The report examines in detail the specific policy choices made by the ARB in the design of the program, some specific policy trade-offs inherent in those decisions, and options for program design changes that the Legislature may wish to make depending on its policy priorities.

Handout

[PDF] 2017-18 Cap-and-Trade Expenditure Plan

August 23, 2017 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 3 on Resources and Transportation

Handout

[PDF] 2017-18 Cap-and-Trade Expenditure Plan

August 24, 2017 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review, Subcommittee No. 2

Report

The 2012–13 Budget: Cap–and–Trade Auction Revenues

February 16, 2012 - This report examines the Governor's budget proposal regarding the use of revenues expected to be generated from the cap-and-trade auctions that the California Air Resources Board (ARB) will hold in 2012-13. These auctions are part of the state's plan to meet the goals of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (commonly referred to as AB 32). In this report, we recommend that the Legislature first use the revenues in 2012-13 to offset General Fund costs of existing programs designed to mitigate GHG emissions. Since the Legislature will need to decide which General Fund costs to offset as part of the 2012-13 budget process, such decisions are best made this spring. In addition, the Legislature will need to begin the process of determining how effectively to allocate the remaining auction revenues on new or expanded programs.

Report

[PDF] Cap-and-Trade Extension: Issues for Legislative Oversight

December 12, 2017 - In this report, we (1) provide background information on cap‑and‑trade and the recent extension of the program to 2030, (2) identify key administrative implementation decisions that could affect program outcomes and the need for legislative oversight, (3) identify potential opportunities to increase the effectiveness of a new advisory committee created by AB 398, and (4) describe potential state cap‑and‑trade revenue scenarios through 2030.

Report

[PDF] Cap-and-Trade Revenues: Strategies to Promote Legislative Priorities

January 21, 2016 - In this report, we describe and assess the relationship—from both a legal and policy perspective—between the cap–and–trade regulation and the auction revenues that are generated as a result of the program.

Handout

[PDF] AB32: Letter to Assembly Member Dan Logue Regarding Evaluation of the ARB's Updated Economic Analysis

June 16, 2010 - This responds to Assembly Member Logue's request that we provide an evaluation of the updated economic analysis prepared by the California Air Resources Board of its Scoping Plan for implementing AB 32 (Núñez).

Handout

[PDF] Cap-and-Trade Expenditures: Overview of Governor’s Budget and Issues for Legislative Consideration

February 18, 2016 - Presented to Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review

Report

[PDF] The 2014-15 Budget: Cap-and-Trade Auction Revenue Expenditure Plan

February 24, 2014 - In order to minimize the negative economic impact of cap-and-trade, it is important that auction revenues be invested in a way that maximizes GHG emission reductions for a given level of spending. In reviewing the Governor's proposed expenditure plan, we find that there is significant uncertainty regarding the degree to which each investment proposed for funding will achieve GHG reductions. This uncertainty is the result of several factors, including there being only limited data and analysis provided by the administration, as well as the fact that the level of emission reductions achieved would depend on the specific projects funded by departments. Given these concerns, we recommend that the Legislature direct ARB to develop metrics for departments to use in order to prospectively evaluate the potential GHG emission benefits of proposed projects, as well as direct the board to establish a set of guidelines for how departments should incorporate these metrics into their decision making processes.

Post

California’s Cap-and-Trade Program: Frequently Asked Questions

October 24, 2023 - This post answers commonly asked questions about cap-and-trade—one of the state’s key programs to address greenhouse gas emissions—and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

Handout

[PDF] Cap-and-Trade Revenue: Issues for Legislative Consideration

February 3, 2016 - Presented to Senate Committee on Environmental Quality and Select Committee on Climate Change and AB 32 Implementation

Report

Assessing California’s Climate Policies—An Overview

December 21, 2018 - Chapter 135 of 2017 (AB 398, E. Garcia) requires our office to annually report on the economic impacts and benefits of California’s statutory greenhouse gas (GHG) emission goals—statewide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. This report provides a conceptual overview of the potential economic effects of policies intended to help meet these goals—both positive and negative—as well as identifies some key issues for the Legislature to consider when designing and evaluating state climate policies. In a companion report, Assessing California’s Climate Policies—Transportation, we provide more detailed information and comments on the state’s major policies aimed at reducing emissions from the transportation sector.

Letter

[PDF] Letter to Honorable Vince Fong Regarding Potential Future Effects of Fuels in Cap-and-Trade Program

April 3, 2017 - Answers two questions regarding the potential future effects of having fuels in California’s cap-and-trade program: 1) How much would gas prices increase under different cap-and-trade allowance price scenarios included in the administration’s regulatory analysis documents? and 2) What would be the additional costs borne by consumers under these allowance price scenarios?